The
2008 thriller film Pontypool is not
your average zombie film. Instead of a viral infection or some evil sorcery
resurrecting the undead, the film centers on the idea that the infection can
spread through language. By repeating a word until the sound seems useless and
the word loses meaning, the small town’s citizens are driven mad. The film does
bring up an interesting concept. In As I
Lay Dying, Addie Bundren talks about repeating her husband’s name until it
becomes “an empty vessel”. John Locke raises the point of how language is not
perfect, and even goes to suggest that words do not exist because they are just
that-empty vessels that vaguely represent the idea of what we suggest them to
represent. In today’s world of text messages and social media, the emoji pictographic
alphabet is used to convey information and often to add extra emotion to a
message, and they are just as important as the words they accompany because
they are more concrete in their nature of interpretation.
In his “Essay
on Understanding”, Locke argues that words do not solidly represent their ideas
assigned to them as thought at first. He cites an example of how he asks a
group of people what the word “liquor” means, and they cannot come up with a
solid agreement on the term. While I do not agree with Locke’s suggestion that
words themselves do not exist, I do agree that they are more loosely associated
than previously thought. However, I feel like Locke is overlooking something by
simplifying his argument. He does apply his experiment to nouns, but excludes
other parts of the language like articles or verbs. The experiment might have
had a more concrete answer if he asked the group what the meaning of the word “the”
or “fly” is.
Applying
this to the emoji alphabet is as simple as analyzing what the symbols
themselves represent. The emoji alphabet is pictographic, and not logographically
built into a syllable-based language. Therefore, each symbol has its own
concrete meaning and is not absolutely concrete in its message. For example,
this emoji pictured here may look like two hands in prayer, but also represents
two people high fiving. However, this is a minority issue with emojis, as most
of them are very simple in what message they convey: smiley face and frown face
represent a simple caricature of the emotion they are associated with.
Saying
that words do not exist purely because there is no absolute truth in their
definition is not necessarily a valid argument because it places the mechanism
of words into an extreme stance of being. Words do exist, but not as the exact
meaning that Locke envisions; this is not likely to happen due to the errant
ways of humans, however, the act of conversation allows for true understanding
to happen through discourse and repetition. Words exist as Addie Bundren
describes them: vessels which carry the overall meaning of what someone is
trying to convey. Vessel is such a weird word, isn’t it? Vessel. Vessel.
Vess-el. Vessel. Oh no, it’s happening.
Max, I read your post solely because of the emoji picture and it was a nice change of pace to see a comparison to something in real life. I am having trouble fully comprehending what your post is trying to say however. I don't recall Locke saying that words do not exist (I do not fully understand Locke as of now so I could be wrong). What I do recall is that Locke presents the notion that we (people) assign meaning to a word because it was "unanimously" decided by a group of individuals. "The idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts" (818).This excerpt from Locke's fifth proposition argues that in order for a word to signify something and become a "word" as we know it, the idea that it stands for must be retained in discourse (which he states is the hardest thing to happen). So I think Locke would actually agree with Addie Bundren in that words are vessels. As stated in John Locke's opening page from "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" the use of words is "secondly for the communicating of our thoughts to others."
ReplyDeleteHi Max,
ReplyDeleteYour translation of Locke's concept of the complexity of language into our modern society is intriguing. In addition to Locke's ideas that everyone has different experiences and therefore may define words differently (such as the word "liquor"), Derrida also brings up some good points on why words don't exist purely with absolute truth, like you said. Derrida talks about how "since language has not fallen from the sky, it is clear that the differences have been produced" (Derrida, 286). That's another reason language is complex, unpure, and not completely true -- definitions change. Ideas change. Language itself changes, as you point out in your discussion of the "language" of emojis. I think another interesting way to look at it would be to consider the fact that Derrida insists that words are defined in part in relation to one another. If we consider a particular emoji to be a word, we can realize that that particular emoji is defined differently when put in relation with other words. For example, if someone uses the crying face emoji, it could mean they are actually upset or it could mean that they are exaggerating an emotion. The meaning of the emoji depends on the context that it's in. "My dog just got hit by a car *crying face emoji*" and "I just dropped my sandwich *crying face emoji*" have different meanings, and in each, the emoji has a different meaning.
Overall, I enjoyed reading your blog post and now I can't stop thinking about what a weird word "vessel" is.
Sarah Davis
Max –
ReplyDeleteWhile you caught my attention with the reference to Faulkner’s "As I Lay Dying" in the beginning (and probably because of the emoji picture as well), you also kept my attention to the very end with a reference from the novel, which you used to relate to Locke and which actually made me laugh at the end. "Pontypool" and "As I Lay Dying" are both wonderful examples to use in reference to your idea – isn’t that a daunting word in this context – that Locke was wrong when saying that words don’t exist because there is no absolute truth tied to their definition, however, I want to take it one step further. You used a great pop culture reference with the “praying hands/high-fiving” emoji to back up your claim that words do in fact exist, they are just more loosely associated than previously thought. But, I’d like to unpack this specific example just a bit further.
You said that someone can either look at the emoji as two hands that are pressed together in prayer, or, two hands from separate entities that are high-fiving. Well, what if it’s neither? What if some people don’t pray with their hands together in that fashion, and what if some people don’t even know what a high-five is? I am saying this because Locke says “More complex or secondary ideas may not be universal but culture-bound, communal, or even individual. Thus, there is a delicate balance between word and idea that can be easily upset by either incomplete knowledge or unclear communication” (Locke 798). Since Locke believed that all humans can ever know are their own ideas of things, not the real “essences” of things themselves, there is room to argue that you making the conclusion that that specific emoji had one of two meanings/definitions is highly inconclusive. Maybe that’s what you think because you grew up in a Catholic/Christian/[insert another denomination here] family and you clasped your hands together to pray, but that may just be your personal experience. And, putting your hands together is just an association and by-product of the word “pray”.
While I agree that words are more loosely associated than we thought, I am kind of leaning towards Locke on this one, that they may be so loosely associated and constantly changing that there’s no way to pinpoint a specific meaning.
-Morgan